Follows are some extracts from this 267 page report. Bolding and font colors are mine.

(p 139)

Article 125 of the UCMJ treats all acts of sodomy, heterosexual, homosexual, consensual, or otherwise, as punishable conduct. In Lawrence v. Texas,360 the Supreme Court held that private consensual sodomy between adults cannot be considered a crime. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reached a similar conclusion in the military context in the case United States v. Marcum.361 In light of these decisions, we recommend that Article 125 be repealed or amended to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy between adults, regardless of sexual orientation[NB: IIRC, Sodomy in the UCMJ includes not only anal sex but all deviant sexual practices]. The other prohibitions considered punishable under Article 125, including forcible sodomy, sodomy with minors and sodomy that is demonstrated to be service discrediting (e.g., in public or between a superior and subordinate), should remain on the books.

The DoD Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, which consists of military lawyers from each Service, is responsible for conducting an annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial and recommends changes to both the UCMJ and the Manual. The Joint Services Committee has already developed a legislative proposal along the lines outlined above, in light of Lawrence and Marcum, and we endorse that proposal.

In essence, the Joint Service Committee has proposed the following action by Congress: repeal of Article 125 in its entirety, and amend Article 120 of the UCMJ362 to include forcible sodomy and sodomy offenses against children. The Joint Service Committee also proposes to rewrite the Manual for Courts-Martial so as to make clear that all other aspects of the repealed Article 125 not barred by Lawrence and Marcum may be prosecuted under Article 134 of the UCMJ,363 which generally prohibits all misconduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or is Service discrediting.

(page 140-141)

We do not recommend segregated housing for gay or lesbian Service members. We believe this would do more harm than good for unit cohesion, create a climate of stigmatization and isolation, and be impossible to enforce or administer unless Service members are required to disclose their sexual orientation. On the other hand, we are sensitive to concerns expressed to us by commanders that disputes may arise between gay and straight Service members assigned to live together involving, at least to some extent, sexual orientation. Commanders should have the flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to addresses those concerns in the interests of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline.

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation, except that commanders should retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission.

…

Accordingly, we recommend the Department of Defense expressly prohibit the designation of separate facilities based on sexual orientation, except that commanders retain the authority to adjudicate requests for accommodation of privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case basis in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. It should also be recognized that commanders already have the toolsfrom counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecutionto deal with misbehavior in both living quarters and bathing situations, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight.

(p 142-146)

Next, our Terms of Reference required that we consider the issue of benefits for same-sex partners and the families of gay and lesbian Service members, in the event of repeal. This issue is itself large and complex, and is part of the ongoing national, political, and legal debate concerning same-sex relationships and gay marriage. We studied the issue carefully, and no other policy recommendation came close to consuming as much time and effort.

…

…In the event of repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, the basic question becomes whether and to what extent benefits and support resources currently available only to spouses of Service members can and should also be extended to same-sex partners of Service members.

…we divided benefits broadly into three categories:

…there are certain benefits that, given current law, cannot legally be extended to same-sex partners.…

…those that are now, under current law and regulations, fully available to anyone of a Service members choosing, including a same-sex partner, because they are member-designated benefits.…

…benefits that are not statutorily prohibited, because Congress has not explicitly limited the benefit in a manner that precludes same-sex partners, but that current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. For these, the Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory flexibility to define the eligible beneficiaries in way that includes same-sex partners…

(In the first category):

More specifically, many of the most significant benefits for those who are married, including eligibility for the Basic Allowance for Housing at the with-dependent rate, are statutorily defined in a way that does not allow extension to any same-sex relationship. Criteria for the Basic Allowance for Housingmoney a Service member living off-base receives to pay for housingare set forth in 37 U.S.C. § 403. [NB: BAH cannot be extended because it legally isn't able to be extended as a result of DOMA]

…Likewise, military health care benefits for same-sex partners are legally limited in the same way…

We note, however, the evolving legal landscape. On July 8, 2010, a Federal district court in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional,379 and the case is now on appeal.

(In the second category):

benefits like Servicemembers Group Life Insurance and Thrift Savings Plan beneficiaries, missing member notification, and hospital visitation access, are currently available to same-sex partners because the Service member has discretion to designate the beneficiary. If Dont Ask, Dont Tell is repealed, Service members may so designate a same-sex partner without then having to conceal the nature of the relationship from the military. In the event of repeal, we recommend the Department of Defense and the Services inform Service members about these types of benefits, so that they can take advantage of them for their committed same-sex partners and children, should they desire to do so.

(In the third category):

the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance office

military family housing…This could be accomplished in two ways: leave to the Service member the freedom to designate his or her dependents, family members, or similar term; or, revise these definitions to specifically mention a committed, same-sex relationship, and require some type of proof of that committed relationship…

Our recommendation is that the Department of Defense and the Services review benefits in this category and assess whether they can be extended to same-sex partners in accordance with the former approachthat is, to refashion the benefit to become a member-designated one. [NB: Except for MFH...at this time]

Also, we do not, at this time[NB: AT THIS TIME], recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition of dependent, family member, or other similar term, for purposes of extending benefits eligibility. We realize this is different from the direction the Federal government is taking for civilian employees to address the disparity in benefits available to married opposite-sex relationships and committed same-sex relationships. However, we believe that, in the short-term, immediately following a repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, our recommended approach is justified in the military context, for several reasons.

First, as stated before, we believe that to create an environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can win quick and easy acceptance within the military community, repeal must be explained as an effort to achieve equal treatment for all. If, simultaneous with repeal, the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department of Defense itself would be creating a new inequitybetween unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples. This new inequity, or the perception of it, would run counter to the military ethic of fair and equal treatment.

In addition, benefits play a much larger role in day-to-day military life, than in Federal civilian agencies. For the military, benefits cover many aspects of day-to-day life, including on-base housing, housing allowances, family support programs, and commissary and base exchange shopping privileges, and provide other valuable forms of assistance, like family separations allowances, space-available travel, and relocation assistance. We know from our numerous engagements of the force that resentment at perceived inequities runs deep in military families.

Finally, there is the complexity of the administration of a new system in which the personnel or another office on a military base would have to determine whether a same-sex couple qualifies as a committed relationship. Other Federal agencies are managing this by establishing a domestic partner status for same-sex partners, through an affidavit or other evidence of the relationship.384 Within the military community, where benefits are much more prominent and visible than in civilian life, administering such a system distracts from the militarys core mission and runs counter to the Secretary of Defenses basic direction that implementation of a repeal of Dont Ask, Dont Tell be done in a way that minimizes disruption to the force.

For these reasons, we recommend, for the time being[NB: FOR THE TIME BEING], that the Department of Defense and the Services not revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition of dependent, family member, or other similar term, for purposes of benefits eligibility.

However, we also recommend that the Department of Defense revisit this issue after repeal, as part of the post-repeal follow-on review we recommend below[NB: THERE YOU GO!!]. This will permit the Department of Defense to revisit and reassess the issue as implementation of repeal is underway. It is also in recognition that the national debate on same-sex marriage and partner benefits is ongoing, and that the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of flux. During the post-repeal assessment, the Department of Defense may then reconsider creating a qualifying relationship status for same-sex relationships, or for both committed same-sex and committed unmarried opposite-sex relationships, if the implementation of repeal to that point indicates that the extension of benefits in this manner is feasible and desirable.385

So let’s see if I have this right. The government regulates our food intake in the name of our health, going so far as to ban toys as an incentive to buy a McDonald’s Happy Meal. BUT will condone anal sex and other forms of sodomy KNOWN to transmit disease, in the name of....of...someone help me out here?

From a military to the gay country club of sodomites going sick and abused, with free health care to exacerbate the lot... and to ease the good morale, others will have to bend over too and not kill the assaulters?

Liberals are greedy idiots of the most hypocrite order. No wonder they resort to I hate Bush, we love the French and we worship Obama’s intelligence. These are easy cop outs for money grubbing hypocrite liberals who want it all for free.

Good luck with that America.

3
posted on 12/07/2010 6:24:16 AM PST
by JudgemAll
(Democrates Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)

From above:
Accordingly, we recommend the Department of Defense expressly prohibit the designation of separate facilities based on sexual orientation,

So then they are recommending that men and women use the same facilities? Men and women will bunk and shower together? Or are they going to create another new inequity and only use separate facilities in regard to possible heterosexual perceptions of privacy? But then force people to bunk and shower with someone who openly expresses a same-gender perversion?

Also to add, there is no such thing as sexual orientation. It is a made up meaningless term to make it seem as if homosexual behavior and perversions are normal. They are not.

What a bunch of bat guano. The people behind the repeal of DADT don’t give a damn about anything but furthering their sick agenda. They haven’t considered consequences because they don’t care in the least. I’m so sick and tired of these people that I’m about past PC.

The humans who are in positions of leadership within the DoD today have not come to this perverted state overnight.

They are extremely corrupt, dishonest, unfaithful, disloyal, traitorous, arrogant, human trash seeking to squander whatever is placed in their charge. They deserve the reputation they have now given themselves for all eternity future.

Through faith in Christ, they may find redemption, but they have lost many an eternal reward in heaven, if they return to Him, which is a far better place than the one they seek to build and are attempting to destine for themselves and those around them.

7
posted on 12/07/2010 7:14:27 PM PST
by Cvengr
(Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)

I am extremely naive. What other forms of sodomy are there besides anal sex? Nothing graphic please. I just want to know what is meant by “other forms”. Is oral sex included?

If that’s the case, and a man and woman engage in oral sex with each other, does that mean that they have committed sodomy? I know this is a bit off topic, since we are discussing gays in the military, but I want to make sure my understanding of terms is correct.

Anyway—gays in the military. If they won’t separate straight men from gay men, or straight women from gay women, then why would they separate men from women? If the argument is being made that not all gay men are aroused by every man they see, then why not apply that to not all men are aroused by every woman they see?

By keeping men separate from women, but not gays from straights, suggests the notion that homosexuals can resist sexual temptation and behave with better conduct than straights. No doubt this is what all the gays want us to think.

8
posted on 12/08/2010 3:49:32 PM PST
by Conservaliberty
(Ancient Chinese Curse: "May you live in interesting times....and may you always get what you want.")

Anyone who says or thinks (and there are some on FR) that there is no "gay" agenda, or that any "gay" agenda does affect them, is actually saying that the homosexual agenda doesn't bother them. Why would it not bother them? Because they're on board with it. There is no other reason. Leftists want to push the agenda of same sex sodomy and as a plus, destroy the military. The military protects our freedoms, and we owe it to the military to support their right to not have homosexuals ruining it.

9
posted on 12/08/2010 4:56:11 PM PST
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)

"We do not recommend segregated housing for gay or lesbian Service members. We believe this would do more harm than good for unit cohesion, create a climate of stigmatization and isolation, and be impossible to enforce or administer unless Service members are required to disclose their sexual orientation. On the other hand, we are sensitive to concerns expressed to us by commanders that disputes may arise between gay and straight Service members assigned to live together involving, at least to some extent, sexual orientation. Commanders should have the flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to addresses those concerns in the interests of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline.

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation,

What? They worry about reduced unit cohesion resulting from the fact that those who choose to engage in homosexual sex might be identified YET they push to have those disordered homosexual sex "dispruptors" imposed upon the military?

They realize this leftist imposed experiment in perversion acceptance by mandatory exposure will most like create a difficult situation and impact unit cohesion so they leave it up to the commanders to fist pretend it is not a problem and then have the "leeway" to be able to deal with it? Do commanders now need special homosexual sex laws passed to be able to house and discipline their troops?

Why deal with an imposed problem -why impose the problem in the first place?

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.

b. Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal.

(Note: Add any of the following as applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 12.

(3) That the act was done with a child who had attained the age of 12 but was under the age of 16.

(4) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

c. Explanation. It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that persons mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that persons sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.

So, in plain English, analingus, cunnilingus, fellatio, and bestiality are explicitly included. However, the Manual for Court Martial refers a prosecutor to Art 120, which was significantly revised in 2007.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.